1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 June 2016 b. Date Received: 13 June 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for education purposes. The applicant contends he served one year in the National Guard and three years on active duty prior to his current discharge without a blemish on his record. He heeded the patriot call to reenlist after the 9/11 attacks. He felt he would most certainly get deployed, he had a sense of duty and felt a sense of pride. However, having most recent become a new father with two children and facing adverse and separation from his children he felt a strong need to see his children before he deployed (wife moved out of state). He asked his first sergeant, CO, and chaplain for three days to see his kids before deploying to Afghanistan, having had his request denied he went AWOL using almost any means necessary to see his children, not having had any success. He called his squad leader and turned himself in; as a father he felt he made the right choice and as a Soldier he could see it was wrong. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 August 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 4 April 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 24 March 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: going AWOL from 7 January 2003 until his return on 23 January 2003; Failing to repair (FTR) on two occasions (10 December 2002 and 11 December 2002); and Being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer on 31 October 2002. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: The Election of Rights memorandum was undated. (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 March 2003 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 April 2002 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 28 / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12B10, Combat Engineer / 6 years, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 25 March 1997 TO 29 April 1997 / NA ADT, 30 April 1997 to 23 October 1997 / NIF ARNG, 24 October 1997 to 23 April 1998 / HD RA, 24 April 1998 to 23 April 2001 / HD USARCG, 24 April 2001 to 8 April 2002 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 20 November 2002, for being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer on 31 October 2002. The punishment consisted of 7 days extra duty and restriction. CG Article 15, dated 19 December 2002, for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 10 and 11 December 2002. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $304 (suspended), and 14 days extra duty and restriction. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 5 February 2003, vacated the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $304 imposed on 19 December 2002. The vacation was based on the applicant being absent from his unit on 7 January 2003 to 23 January 2003. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 16 days (7 January 2003 to 22 January 2003), mode of return unknown. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge was the result of his need to see his children before he deployed (wife moved out of state). Having asked members of his chain of command and the Chaplin for three days to see his kids before deploying to Afghanistan and being denied he went AWOL. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant's service accomplishments prior to the period of enlistment under review have been noted as outlined on the application and the applicant is to be commended on his achievements. It should be noted that by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct. It appears the applicant's generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for education purposes. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 August 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change f. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160011625 1